Tag: teachers

I’m currently reading Alex Kotlowitz’s nationally acclaimed book, There Are No Children Here, a book that displays the harsh affects that poverty has on children who live through it, day in and day out. Kotlowitz starts off by focusing on the violent and burdensome social lives of Lafayette and Pharoah Rivers but then dovetails into very important aspects of the poverty story that has often been said to not be affected by poverty: the school and education of the impoverished child.

Kotlowitz, before describing and connecting the affect that poverty has on Lafayette and Pharoah’s education, gives a general summary of what little resources the principal and teachers have to work with.

“Also, Suder [one of the local schools serving the few thousand kids growing up in the crime infested Horner projects] must share a nurse and psychologist with three other schools and a social worker with four other schools.”

Not only do the children live in poverty, but the schools themselves operate and function in poverty.

But this sentence resonated with me for another reason. My high school severed students from three large project developments. Even though these projects were similar, though less dangerous than Horner, it was obvious that a large number of my fellow classmates were behaviorally troubled because of their environment. What’s more is that my high school in 2010 shared a social worker with three other high schools, like Horner in 1987. Nearly a quarter of a century later and we still can’t admit that not acknowledging poverty as a real detriment to students academic and social success has much to do with why children who live through it can’t break the cycle.

I admire this book, because like How Children Succeed, it acknowledges that education needs more than “better” teachers. The problem is far more complicated than that.

Here’s an EdTrust infographic about the seven key goals of ESSA. Thoughts on two of my favorite points are below the infographic.

Point five and six are probably the most important. Five acknowledges that while parents play a huge role in their children’s academic development, ineffective teachers, consecutive ineffective teaching in particular teaching, is a huge problem in low income, minority school communities. Now, this isn’t to say I agree that three consecutive years of “good” teaching is sufficient to close the achievement gap. Nor does it mean that I’m in favor of punishing teachers who aren’t continuosly meeting academic goals. I entirely understand that there are many factors that play into how “effective” a teacher is. A lot of that lack of effectiveness has to do with a lack of effective professional development for teachers. What point five really highlights, to me, is the importance of mending this cycle that keeps the most disadvange students with the most ineffective teachers. A good start would be to track and follow how that cycle works, where it’s most pronounced and note any identifiable causes.

This sort of leads into the importance of point six, which is continued funding to low income communties. Im not too clear on what this funding includes specifically, but hopefully there’s an emphasis on Title II funding, which supports teachers’ professional development.

In How Children Succeed, Paul Tough walks us through the chemical proccesses of children who have been through traumatic experiences and how those emotions, if not catered to, can affect not only a students education but lifelong experiences. Whle he also talks about how character, especially grit, can help children become more effective students, and in turn, better citizens, I love his emphasis on the role of the parent.

As far as students underperforming on exams goes, a lot of people blame teachers and are either ingnorant or too politcal-minded to rest some of that blame on parents. His last chapter, titled “A Better Path”, note how parents and role models play a significant position in a child/young adult’s mental development. These relationships are almost always personal and are better developed through one-on-one interactions. Some public school teachers are trying to aid 30 kids to a class, 45 minutes at a time, making it difficult to cultivate a personal, on-going relationship. Parents, however, are able to interact with their kids more frequently and for a much longer period of time than any single teacher ever could.

This has always been my train of thought, but I love how Tough essentially says that parents do not need to be academically inclined to make their child a better student. Providing them with the understanding of hardwork, optimism, curiosity and a sense of protection, parents can be one of their child’s most powerful resources, not neccessarily a teacher (…though of course they play a big part, as well).

Students of colors are significantly less likely to be “deemed” gifted by caucasian teachers than students of color being taught by teachers of color. This Washington Post article lists some reasons why this may be but the question is how do we rectify this? I didn’t read the study the article is based on, but it would be interesting to see what the schools studied considered to be “gifted” and what, if anything, is being done with students who are almost-gifted-but-not-there-yet? I’d like to know the answer to the latter question more so than the former simply because if some “near-gifted” colored students aren’t selected for the initial gifted program, it’s important to continue to hone and challenge their minds. According to the study, they prove to be just as academically gifted, so it would be ashamed that they are denied entry into a gifted program but remain in a less engaging environment, which would leave room for them to lose that will to learn. ughhhh. It sucks because more likely that not, this is what is happening:-/

Pauline Zdonek, a Illionois teacher and math coach, wrote a blog post on Edutopia about the importance of effective professional development. I won’t go into too much detail, but I can’t agree with the point of her post anymore: Teachers, like students, benefit from development geared towards their individualized needs more than non-applicable, repetitive information. We should want each teacher to leave a session learning something useful, rather than waste their time, as Pauline recounts in her post. The problem, she says, is that administrators apply a one size fits all technique, which ends up being so vague, no one can benefit it.

While it is hard to provide granular, one-on-one professional development for every teacher, any attempt to “meet the teacher where she is at” is a safe bet on making an actual improvement to her skill set. Pauline recounts the all too often situation is a teacher not being asked what she would like to gain from a training session but given a requirement to attend sessions, regardless if she walks away with meaningful, useful guidance or not.

Why do we expect teachers to be amazing when we don’t understand or care for how they’re being taught? Professional development needs to be a more transparent component of education as a whole. Perhaps professional development organizers could meet with a wide range of teachers and discuss what could be covered over a series of future professional development trainings. Or, if meeting is not possible, have students fill out a detailed survey that leaves plenty of room for open-ended answers, which would be sufficient to engage the teacher about how they can be accommodated. With that said, genuine professional development for teachers that takes their needs into consideration would just let teachers know that, just as students’ individual needs matter, theirs do too…because they are…students, after all.

I know reformers don’t like accommodating teachers, but I think PD accommodation is worth the investment, no?

In Dana Goldstein’s The Teacher Wars, there is an undertone that can be found throughout the book, which makes it’s first appearance in the introduction: “I suspected that the key to understanding the American view of teachers lay with our history and perhaps had something to do with the tension between our sky-high hopes for public education as the vehicle of meritocracy and our perennial unwillingness to fully invest in our public sector, teachers and schools included.”

I strongly agree that this sentiment and read the book through, in part for it’s history, to figure out why we blame teachers so much on a failed system that has more to do with society and corrupt educational institutions as a whole, than teachers themselves. I believe the answer lies in her suggested list of changes in the book’s epilogue. She outlines serval insightful actions that she believes will improve our country’s public education system, among them is the subsection titled “End[ing] Outdated Union Protections.” In short, she advocates for the removal of unsuccessful union policies.

Generally speaking, the public perceives teachers’ unions as entities that only care for teachers’ protections, without regard for the students they teach. Policies such as LIFO, weak tenure qualifications, strong policies against revoking tenure and years-long appeal processes to oust ineffective teachers, certainly put a teacher’s wants/needs above the cost of their students. Unions should be able to protect teachers from irrational and unfair firings and abuses but policies, such as sitting in one of New York City’s infamous Rubber Rooms for three years, is a gross abuse unions. I don’t think that eliminating unions altogether, as most charters schools opt to do, is the answer– educating children is far too complex and has a lot of gray area to do that. But, and I think Dana Goldstein would agree, teachers unions are weighed down with policies that harm the education system. Unions need reform so that policies that are counterproductive to students’ learning.

Who is penalized when $250,000,000, which is supposed to be aiding in NYC public school Students’ education, is lost? Who is penalized when that $250,000,000 can increase to as much as $450,000,000 in lost money to help schools who need it most? Th children, of course. No person or group of people is ever so at a disadvantage than the students.

The sad thing is is that they did not have anything to do with the negotiations on teacher evaluations that fell through. While I could understand why not them, but not even a random selection of their parents. Instead,all that money was left in the hands of opposing politicians, and you know what that mean. A complete fail.

Last week, Mike Bloomberg and the UFT did not reach a deal on a new way of evaluating teachers. Bloomeberg says that the UFT added last minute provisions that essentially ignored the whole point of the change in evaluations. The union wanted to have the agreement for the evaluations expire in two years, 2015. Mayor Bloomberg points out that it takes two years for a teacher to be removed from the system, which, if the union’s method were to be put in place, it would be useless.

Surprisingly, I agree with the mayor on this one. The new evaluation system needs to be tested over a number of years, not just a couple. That third year would give us some more fruitful understanding of the effectiveness of the agreement because it goes beyond the two year boundary that protects a teacher. A two year agreement would only show teachers who were warned this year and let go in 2015 but no other. But in order to illustrate a new evaluation system, we’d need at least two years (2015 and 2016) worth of complete feedback compare the two years and its effect on the system as a whole. With the union’s plan, we’d only have one. Teachers who would be given a warning in 2014 have until 2016 to get their act together, but they would be working under a new system. Under the unions provision, there would be two agreements in two years and thats not fair, stable, effective, and in favor of the students.

The union says that they dod not think that this provision was something to hoot and holler about. But, I think they know what they are doing. At the end of the day, the union’s role is to protect the teachers from losing their jobs. They are by law and a sense of obligation, on the side of the teacher, not of the student.